Thoughts on the Sound Devices Mixpre 6?

[Paul Dorman]

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1503005-REG/sound_devices_mixpre_6_ii_6_channel.html/overview


Someone said this is "Miles Beyond" the sound
quality of the Zoom H6.

What say all of you?

[Mike Rivers]

Miles beyond in terms of features for certain kinds of projects. Preamps
are quiet and have a little more gain that most, but it's really not a
fair comparison between the two.

--
For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Neil]

On 8/14/2021 11:09 PM, Paul Dorman wrote:

This is an apples vs. oranges comparison. The Zoom H6 and similar
devices are tools of convenience. So, if they are suitable to your use,
the mixer is probably overkill. Depending on such things as the level of
the event's sound and background noise in the environment, there may be
no benefit to better quality devices.

--
best regards,

Neil

[Paul Dorman]

On 8/15/2021 7:39 AM, Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 8/14/2021 11:09 PM, Paul Dorman wrote:
>> https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1503005-REG/sound_devices_mixpre_6_ii_6_channel.html/overview
>>
>>
>>
>>      Someone said this is "Miles Beyond" the sound
>> quality of the Zoom H6.
>>
>>      What say all of you?
>
> Miles beyond in terms of features for certain kinds of projects. Preamps
> are quiet and have a little more gain that most, but it's really not a
> fair comparison between the two.
>

The Zoom H6 is about $350, and the Mixpre 6 is about $970.

If you read the reviews, many people have been upgrading
from the Zoom H6, to the Mixpre, and all of them have been
pleased with the sound quality improvement. But I'm
wondering how much of that perceived improvement, is
simply a placebo effect, or a "I just spent 2.7 times
more money, so I must hear better recordings!" type of
response?

Someone on this NG once stated that it's best to
get the cheapest equipment these days, because the electronics
perform almost identically, no matter the price tag.

I mean, aren't most modern audio A-to-D converters pretty
much the same these days? In terms of the SINAD ratio? In
terms of the phase noise of the crystal oscillator clock that feeds
them, which can be integrated into an equivalent RMS jitter?

[Paul Dorman]

[John Williamson]

On 15/08/2021 19:08, Paul Dorman wrote:

> Someone on this NG once stated that it's best to
> get the cheapest equipment these days, because the electronics
> perform almost identically, no matter the price tag.
>

Up to a point, they are correct. The major differences nowadays are in
the transducers at each end of the chain, the room sound and the way you
mic up the performers.

Once you master the art of getting the best quality recording out of
what you already have, then you need to start looking at the various
elements in the electronic signal chain.

An excellent recording engineer in a good room will get a better
recording than someone with less experience, while using the same cheap
equipment, and will get an even better recording with better equipment,
where the less experienced person may even get a worse recording than
they did with the cheap gear, using the better gear.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Mike Rivers]

On 8/15/2021 2:08 PM, Paul Dorman wrote:

>      The Zoom H6 is about $350, and the Mixpre 6 is about $970.
>
>      If you read the reviews, many people have been upgrading
> from the Zoom H6, to the Mixpre, and all of them have been
> pleased with the sound quality improvement.  But I'm
> wondering how much of that perceived improvement, is
> simply a placebo effect, or a "I just spent 2.7 times
> more money, so I must hear better recordings!" type of
> response?

There will be a lower noise floor, and the converters might be a little
better in the MixPre. But the main difference is in some of the features
that might be valuable to someone considering a MixPre, but not
something that you'll use in your work.

>      Someone on this NG once stated that it's best to
> get the cheapest equipment these days, because the electronics
> perform almost identically, no matter the price tag.

There isn't a big improvement in performance to the casual user, but to
someone recording for film out in the field will welcome the 6 dB more
gain he can get out of it before the hiss becomes a problem.

[Scott Dorsey]

I've never used the Zoom, but the Sound Devices is sort of the entry level
professional field recorder. It's what people use, and it's pretty much
blameless as a recorder, but the field mixing ability is limited. Preamps
and converters are perfectly okay.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

On 15/08/2021 19:08, Paul Dorman wrote:
>
> Someone on this NG once stated that it's best to
> get the cheapest equipment these days, because the electronics
> perform almost identically, no matter the price tag.

Even were this true, cheap equipment breaks. The Sound Devices boxes are
no Nagras, but the pots won't go intermittent after a few uses like
the equipment they sell at the music store.

[palli...@gmail.com]

Paul wrote:
=========

> If you read the reviews,

** Bad idea - most are fake or just plain bullshit.

> many people have been upgrading
> from the Zoom H6, to the Mixpre, and all of them have been
> pleased with the sound quality improvement.

** Yawnnnnnn.........

> But I'm
> wondering how much of that perceived improvement, is
> simply a placebo effect,

** Nearly all of it.

> or a "I just spent 2.7 times
> more money, so I must hear better recordings!" type of
> response?
>

** Exactly - folk are never gonna say how they wasted money for nothing.

> Someone on this NG once stated that it's best to
> get the cheapest equipment these days, because the electronics
> perform almost identically, no matter the price tag.
>

** That is going too far - cos there is more involved than perceived sound quality.

Features, ruggedness and long term reliability cost money too - ultra cheap units lack all three.

> I mean, aren't most modern audio A-to-D converters pretty
> much the same these days? In terms of the SINAD ratio? In
> terms of the phase noise of the crystal oscillator clock that feeds
> them, which can be integrated into an equivalent RMS jitter?

** FFS top believing marketing bullshit.

[Neil]

On 8/15/2021 2:08 PM, Paul Dorman wrote:

Perhaps you'd get better answers if you tell us HOW and WHERE you are
using (or planning on using) the equipment. Do you have good external
mics that you would use in either case? Do you need to use more than two
mics? Are you recording dialogue or rock bands? Will you be recording in
a studio environment or in a garage?

--
best regards,

Neil

[Paul Dorman]

I would use it to record a grand piano in my living room, as
stated in my other thread, although I might also use it to record
bands, sometimes in their rehearsal spaces. I have good external mics,
and would need at least 3 channels.

[Paul Dorman]

On 8/15/2021 1:41 PM, palli...@gmail.com wrote:
> Paul wrote:
> =========
>
>> If you read the reviews,
>
> ** Bad idea - most are fake or just plain bullshit.

Some may be fake, but most are real. The modern
internet advent of 100s, or even 1000s of user reviews,
has GREATLY improved the buying savvy of the public,
because we get direct feedback from REAL users, and their
REAL experiences with the equipment.

Fake reviews are usually easy to spot: They only
say good things about the product, and lack specific
user details.

>
>> many people have been upgrading
>> from the Zoom H6, to the Mixpre, and all of them have been
>> pleased with the sound quality improvement.
>
> ** Yawnnnnnn.........
>
>> But I'm
>> wondering how much of that perceived improvement, is
>> simply a placebo effect,
>
> ** Nearly all of it.
>
>> or a "I just spent 2.7 times
>> more money, so I must hear better recordings!" type of
>> response?
>>
>
> ** Exactly - folk are never gonna say how they wasted money for nothing.

I'd like to see a double blind test, to see if people
can hear the difference between the Zoom H6, and the Mixpre.

>
>> Someone on this NG once stated that it's best to
>> get the cheapest equipment these days, because the electronics
>> perform almost identically, no matter the price tag.
>>
> ** That is going too far - cos there is more involved than perceived sound quality.
>
> Features, ruggedness and long term reliability cost money too - ultra cheap units lack all three.
>
>
>> I mean, aren't most modern audio A-to-D converters pretty
>> much the same these days? In terms of the SINAD ratio? In
>> terms of the phase noise of the crystal oscillator clock that feeds
>> them, which can be integrated into an equivalent RMS jitter?
>
> ** FFS top believing marketing bullshit.
>

That not just marketing B.S., that's the reality of A-to-D
converter engineering.

But I'm sure the phase noise of the crystal oscillators that
feed the clocks of modern audio A-to-D converters, are pretty much
similar, regardless of the price of the product. Likely the
public cannot tell the difference.

[palli...@gmail.com]

PITA Paul wrote:
=============

>
> >> If you read the reviews,
> >
> > ** Bad idea - most are fake or just plain bullshit.
>
> Some may be fake, but most are real.

** But still mostly bullshit.

> The modern
> internet advent of 100s, or even 1000s of user reviews,
> has GREATLY improved the buying savvy of the public,

** Nonsense.

> because we get direct feedback from REAL users, and their
> REAL experiences with the equipment.

** None of whom you know or who know a thing.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

> Fake reviews are usually easy to spot:

** But bullshit is invisible.

> > ** Exactly - folk are never gonna say how they wasted money for nothing.

> I'd like to see a double blind test,

** Yawnnnnnn.......

> > ** FFS top believing marketing bullshit.
> >
> That not just marketing B.S.,

** Yawnnnnnnn.......

See, you cannot tell fact from BS.

> But I'm sure the phase noise of the crystal oscillators

** Get you hands off it.

The science of audio is NOT your subject.

[Paul Dorman]

Ah yes, you are yet another attention whore!

Yawnnnnnnn.......

[palli...@gmail.com]

PITA fool Paul wrote:
=================

>>
> >> Some may be fake, but most are real.
> >
> > ** But still mostly bullshit.
> >
> >> The modern
> >> internet advent of 100s, or even 1000s of user reviews,
> >> has GREATLY improved the buying savvy of the public,
> >
> > ** Nonsense.
> >
> >> because we get direct feedback from REAL users, and their
> >> REAL experiences with the equipment.
> >
> > ** None of whom you know or who know a thing.
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >> Fake reviews are usually easy to spot:
> >
> > ** But bullshit is invisible.
> >
> >
> >>> ** Exactly - folk are never gonna say how they wasted money for nothing.
> >
> >> I'd like to see a double blind test,
> >
> > ** Yawnnnnnn.......
> >
> >
> >>> ** FFS top believing marketing bullshit.
> >>>
> >> That not just marketing B.S.,
> >
> > ** Yawnnnnnnn.......
> >
> > See, you cannot tell fact from BS.
> >
> >> But I'm sure the phase noise of the crystal oscillators
> >
> > ** Get you hands off it.
> >
> > The science of audio is NOT your subject.

====================================

>
> Ah yes, you are yet another attention whore!

** What a pathetic, bullshit reply.

The only one here now waving his tiny dick about and making an utter ass of himself YOU !!!

FYI Mr Narcisssist:

FAKES like you come here daily with no intention of learning *anything from anyone*.
Like the stupid fucking "user reviews" you love so much, they use the NG purely to reinforce their wrong headed ideas and dumb prejudices.

But YOU are rather worse than most - cos you casually and rudely contradict folk who have actual wisdom.

Fuck you.


..... Phil

[Don Pearce]

On Sun, 15 Aug 2021 13:41:47 -0700 (PDT), "palli...@gmail.com"
<palli...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>> Someone on this NG once stated that it's best to
>> get the cheapest equipment these days, because the electronics
>> perform almost identically, no matter the price tag.
>>
>** That is going too far - cos there is more involved than perceived sound quality.
>
> Features, ruggedness and long term reliability cost money too - ultra cheap units lack all three.

It was me, and the context of my post was solely sound quality. I
totally agree that component choice and build standard weight heavily
- in fact, given my original statement, they are the only things you
need to consider. Sound quality will be a given. Or should be - there
is always room for genuine incompetence.

d

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[Paul Dorman]

On 8/16/2021 5:39 AM, Don Pearce wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Aug 2021 13:41:47 -0700 (PDT), "palli...@gmail.com"
> <palli...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>> Someone on this NG once stated that it's best to
>>> get the cheapest equipment these days, because the electronics
>>> perform almost identically, no matter the price tag.
>>>
>> ** That is going too far - cos there is more involved than perceived sound quality.
>>
>> Features, ruggedness and long term reliability cost money too - ultra cheap units lack all three.
>
> It was me, and the context of my post was solely sound quality. I
> totally agree that component choice and build standard weight heavily
> - in fact, given my original statement, they are the only things you
> need to consider. Sound quality will be a given. Or should be - there
> is always room for genuine incompetence.
>

In our modern digital age, even ultra cheap audio equipment
are a vast improvement over older, tape based equipment.

And one can make the argument that even ultra cheap
products, most of which have excellent sound quality, can
still be better in the long run, simply because you can
just buy a NEW unit, when something stops working!

:)

[Neil]

On 8/15/2021 9:31 PM, Paul Dorman wrote:
> On 8/15/2021 2:12 PM, Neil wrote:

[...]

>> Perhaps you'd get better answers if you tell us HOW and WHERE you are
>> using (or planning on using) the equipment. Do you have good external
>> mics that you would use in either case? Do you need to use more than
>> two mics? Are you recording dialogue or rock bands? Will you be
>> recording in a studio environment or in a garage?
>>
>
>     I would use it to record a grand piano in my living room, as
> stated in my other thread, although I might also use it to record
> bands, sometimes in their rehearsal spaces.  I have good external mics,
> and would need at least 3 channels.

In that case, I doubt that there is any benefit to the audio quality or
extra gain of the mixpre.

--
best regards,

Neil

[Scott Dorsey]

Don Pearce <sp...@spam.com> wrote:
>It was me, and the context of my post was solely sound quality. I
>totally agree that component choice and build standard weight heavily
>- in fact, given my original statement, they are the only things you
>need to consider. Sound quality will be a given. Or should be - there
>is always room for genuine incompetence.

I was really delighted with the Midas Venice when it came out. It was dirt
cheap in price, and it sounded pretty good. The preamps were entirely
respectable and they didn't change in tone as you adjusted the trims the
way many cheaper consoles do. The EQ was defeatable, but very musical and
it had sweepable mids. It seemed absolutely remarkable for something that
really cost hardly more than a Mackie.

But... a couple months on the road and they all fall apart. And they fall
apart in bad ways too, with EQ pots that go intermittent in such a way that
the EQ stages oscillate, or with buss amplifiers that motorboat.

Sound quality is important, but sound quality isn't the only thing.

[Paul Dorman]

There isn't much traffic noise in my neighborhood, and I
take my music very seriously. I would like to create the best
recordings reasonably possible, so I'm willing to shell out a
bit more cash for better sound.

But I wanna pay for a REAL improvement in lower noise
floor, or less harmonic distortion, and not an imaginary (or placebo)
one.

[geoff]

There would have to be something very wrong with practically ANY
mid-level (or maybe even basic) audio interface these days for noise
floor or distortion to be a major factor.

At least any that I've used ....

geoff

[Neil]

The two factors at play are both the noise level of the room and the the
signal level of the instrument. For a real answer about how quiet your
room is, get a noise meter and measure it. I'd be surprised if the noise
level is below 30 or 40 dB unless your music room has isolated floors
and walls as well as serious insulation in the outer walls and sub
floor. At the same time, the level of the piano is going to be well
above 30 dB even during fade-outs. Don't even worry about bands in their
rehearsal spaces.

--
best regards,

Neil

[palli...@gmail.com]

Some Trolling Asshole calling itself Paul wrote:
---------------------------------------------------------------------

>
> And one can make the argument that even ultra cheap
> products, most of which have excellent sound quality, can
> still be better in the long run, simply because you can
> just buy a NEW unit, when something stops working!

[palli...@gmail.com]

A Colossal FOOL calling itself Paul puked:
----------------------------------------------------------

> I would like to create the best
> recordings reasonably possible, so I'm willing to shell out a
> bit more cash for better sound.
>
> But I wanna pay for a REAL improvement in lower noise
> floor, or less harmonic distortion, and not an imaginary (or placebo)
> one.

[palli...@gmail.com]

Neil wrote:
=========

>
> The two factors at play are both the noise level of the room and the the
> signal level of the instrument. For a real answer about how quiet your
> room is, get a noise meter and measure it. I'd be surprised if the noise
> level is below 30 or 40 dB unless your music room has isolated floors
> and walls as well as serious insulation in the outer walls and sub
> floor. At the same time, the level of the piano is going to be well
> above 30 dB even during fade-outs. Don't even worry about bands in their
> rehearsal spaces.
>

** Yes, the recorded background noise will depend on the room ambient and the electret mics he is using.
Oh, plus the player breathing and clothing making noises.
Not which brand of mixer or mic-pre.

But the idiot OP is still addicted to fake info he sees on the commercial web.


.... Phil

[INFOHOU]

On Aug 15, 2021 at 14:07:15 CDT, "Scott Dorsey" <Scott Dorsey> wrote:

> Paul Dorman <quill...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1503005-REG/sound_devices_mixpre_6_ii_6_channel.html/overview
>>
>>
>> Someone said this is "Miles Beyond" the sound
>> quality of the Zoom H6.
>>
>> What say all of you?
>
> I've never used the Zoom, but the Sound Devices is sort of the entry level
> professional field recorder. It's what people use, and it's pretty much
> blameless as a recorder, but the field mixing ability is limited. Preamps
> and converters are perfectly okay.
> --scott

––––––––––––––––––––––

I understand from listening to working soundmen that in the movie industry
Sound Devices is the standard.

Also, not sure it is available on the Mixpre6, but they now have a noise
reduction addon that is the cat's meow.

Hope y'all well and good,
Robert

[Scott Dorsey]

INFOHOU <inf...@notgonnatellya.com> wrote:
>On Aug 15, 2021 at 14:07:15 CDT, "Scott Dorsey" <Scott Dorsey> wrote:
>> Paul Dorman <quill...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1503005-REG/sound_devices_mixpre_6_ii_6_channel.html/overview
>>>
>>> Someone said this is "Miles Beyond" the sound
>>> quality of the Zoom H6.
>>>
>>> What say all of you?
>>
>> I've never used the Zoom, but the Sound Devices is sort of the entry level
>> professional field recorder. It's what people use, and it's pretty much
>> blameless as a recorder, but the field mixing ability is limited. Preamps
>> and converters are perfectly okay.
>

>I understand from listening to working soundmen that in the movie industry
>Sound Devices is the standard.

Yes, pretty much. It's what people use.

>Also, not sure it is available on the Mixpre6, but they now have a noise
>reduction addon that is the cat's meow.

PLEASE don't use that on-set. PLEASE. It dramatically reduces what can be
done with your tracks in post.